Post removed for asking someone to pm me??!!

Game_Over

LadyDee wrote: »

In this case you just have to look at Hollidays history - years of giving valuable consumer advice. A little judgment should be exercised when removing posts, not just automatically removing it.

If Holidays had been a Newbie - then that would be different.

You get no favours here for loyalty.

On the contrary, if youy are a Newbie, others are supposed to give you a chance whilst being especially nice to you

Game_Over

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

That phrase 'posting privileges' really amuses me. No! We, the posters, confer the privileges on the owners of the board. They are privileged that people spend their time contributing to the discussions and thereby keep the board alive. Without the posters there would be nothing,

Posting is a privilege, not a right. This is a privately-owned site. Posting is a privilege, not a right. Any inappropriate posts or any issues that take up a disproportionate amount of resources or make it a worse place to be will be stopped at our discretion - with or without explanation. No one pays to use this site; when there are issues, we pay to resolve them. Sometimes we need to prioritise spending money on the site, other issues or better resources.

Chef Ramsay seems to have the right approach...

Game_Over

NaughtiusMaximus wrote: »

If PM requests are against MSE policy,....

But are they?
Where in the rules does it say PM requests are against MSE policy? :huh:

NaughtiusMaximus

Game_Over wrote: »

But are they?
Where in the rules does it say PM requests are against MSE policy? :huh:

I don't know, hence the use of the word 'if' at the start of the sentence. The first reply in this thread suggests it may be the case, either officially or unofficially.

pogofish

Game_Over wrote: »

But are they?
Where in the rules does it say PM requests are against MSE policy? :huh:

3:15 of course:

The safety of our forum users is paramount. For this reason, we can't allow anyone to exchange their personal details either on the open forum or via private message, however honourable the intention.

Which of course you clearly confirmed having read and understood as part of your sign-up, before you could even post here...?

[Deleted User]

The safety of our forum users is paramount. For this reason, we can't allow anyone to exchange their personal details either on the open forum or via private message, however honourable the intention.

That statement does not prohibit a user inviting another user to contact him by PM.

Commy_Trooper

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

That statement does not prohibit a user inviting another user to contact him by PM.

What about 'her'? Or only 'him'?

I also had postings removed - for other reason!

[Deleted User]

Commy_Trooper wrote: »

What about 'her'? Or only 'him'?

That's the generic 'him', obviously meaning 'him or her'. It's an elegant way of writing, that avoids atrocious constructs such as 'him or her', 'he and she', 's/he' and various others linguistic abominations.

Rainbowgirl84

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

That's the generic 'him', obviously meaning 'him or her'. It's an elegant way of writing, that avoids atrocious constructs such as 'him or her', 'he and she', 's/he' and various others linguistic abominations.

I think the word 'them' works well:-

That statement does not prohibit a user inviting another user to contact them by PM.

[Deleted User]

Rainbowgirl84 wrote: »

I think the word 'them' works well:-

That statement does not prohibit a user inviting another user to contact them by PM.

Quite dreadful. 'Them' is plural. We are talking about a user, singular. The whole thing could, of course, be rephrased thus:


That statement does not prohibit users inviting other users to contact them …


However, that sounds too contrived. I prefer the universal 'he', except where the subject is clearly one with a female slant - dinner ladies, nurses and the like, in which case the universal 'she' is better.


Anyway, we're getting off topic here. Perhaps use of pronouns should be a separate thread.